Today, the South China Morning Post (the Hong Kong paper Snowden has been talking to for awhile now) answered that question. If true (and we have no reason to doubt these folks based on their previous reporting), this is HUGE!
Edward Snowden secured a job with a US government contractor for one reason alone – to obtain evidence on Washington’s cyberspying networks, the South China Morning Post can reveal.First of all, this not only cooks Snowden's goose pretty completely. But we now have every reason to question Glenn Greenwald's role in all this. Did he know about or in any way influence Snowden's decision to take the job specifically for the purpose of leaking? If so, he's implicated in a criminal conspiracy. I'm not one that thinks these kinds of questions should necessarily require a court of law to be answered. Greenwald wants to claim the mantle of "journalist." Its time he came clean.
For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency’s secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.
“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told the Post on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”
UPDATE: Apparently Glenn Greenwald spoke to Greg Sargent to address these questions today. I'll let you read it for yourself and will stipulate that his explanation matches up with timelines he has written about in the past.
But I still have a few questions. First and foremost is that he is never quoted as making a categorical denial of knowing about Snowden's decision to take a job specifically for the purpose of gaining access to the documents they leaked. I've been watching Greenwald for too long not to be aware of how he twists words to avoid unpleasant facts.
Secondly, I'm curious why Greenwald went to Sargent instead of either writing this himself or being interviewed by someone at the Guardian - where he works. Don't get me wrong - I'm a fan of Sargent's work. But this is a big story. You have to wonder why Greenwald would give it away.
Finally, I can't help but wonder how Greenwald would approach this if the shoe were on the other foot.
“I approach my journalism as a litigator,” he said. “People say things, you assume they are lying, and dig for documents to prove it.”And yet questioning him is reckless innuendo.
“Anybody who wants to accuse me or anyone at the Guardian of aiding and abetting Snowden has the obligation to point to any specific evidence to support that accusation,” Greenwald told me. “Otherwise they’re just spouting reckless innuendo.”Why not just demonstrate some transparency and publish the communication he had with Snowden? You KNOW that's what he would be demanding if the roles were reversed.
Explains why this cat ran - if he purposely took a national security job to basically turn double agent, the best he can hope for is comfy cell in Leavenworth for the next 20 years, because he was literally guilty of treason.ReplyDelete
this is straight up, no holds barred, no confusion about it..ReplyDelete
against the United States of America.
and for all of those who have been holding this traitor up as some kind of hero..
apologies begin to the left.
Could this be at the heart of Greenwald and Snowden's attempts to obscure and embarrass the U.S. government? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRk2V4nJiyIReplyDelete
From everything we can see, Snowden did not act alone when it comes to this leak. The leak, the fast fleeing out of the United States, and then getting the process of seeking asylum kicked into gear in the same country that granted asylum to Greenwald's pal Assange.ReplyDelete
I will also take note that Greenwald is saying that anyone saying he or Guardian had anything to do with Snowden's actions needs to present evidence of it, but he isn't outright denying that he did it. Hmm.
Now, that's some high-quality Greenwaldian logic right there. Fist-bump!Delete
That's why I noted GG's non-denial denial:
First and foremost is that he is never quoted as making a categorical denial of knowing about Snowden's decision to take a job specifically for the purpose of gaining access to the documents they leaked.
The New York Times is reporting Snowden had been to Hong Kong on a previous vacation.Delete
Must be nice to gallivant around the globe just 4 weeks into your job. Most places, the new employee is on a 3 to 6 month probationary period where your pay will get docked if you take a sick day.Delete
How did he get this job in the first place, with so few qualifications?ReplyDelete
Mlf is right, the issue is, HOW did the great super-secret US security apparatus with it's gold platted contractors FAIL so massively?ReplyDelete
Who hired this guy, why did the NSA let this info float around in the commercial world. ANYONE who spends any oxygen wanking about snowden and greenwad are missing the point completely. The point is the government agencies have failed in a massive way.
OR they are playing us, and ES and GG are paid to do this little show.
“I approach my journalism as a litigator.”ReplyDelete
GG, this is a recipe for disaster. This mentality is why you are in the hot water you are in now.
A journalist's job first and foremost is to report the facts. That's it!
A litigator's job is to argue a point-of-view (with or without facts).
And you're a bigger idiot than I originally though you were because you can't tell the difference.
If this were true, then the NSA is totally useless and inept. A terrorist could easily have infiltrated the same agency. So lets stop funding this ridiculous, stupid agency.ReplyDelete
What about the Voting Rights Act? Do progressives give a damn that black people are being disenfranchised, AGAIN? All I've heard from these blogs are *Crickets*.ReplyDelete
Nice try at deflection. Try Lawyers, Guns & Money; Kevin Drum; Balloon Juice; Benen; Kilgore; Steve M ... and those are just ones I check routinely. They're all on it. This thread, however, which was posted yesterday, is not. Funny, that.Delete